Stabilized lens worth the extra $$ ?

[flameshots]

I'm about to buy a new canon 60D and I have noticed there are some really good deals on just bodies. I already have an 18-55 and a 70-300. So what I really want to know is do you guys think the newer image stabilized lenses are worth the extra $200 or should I just buy the body only and save my money for a 2.8 or prime. (I already have a 50mm 1.4). Thanks for the help.

BTW the "kit lens" that is being offered is the 18-135 stabilized.

 

[Restomage]

For those consumer lenses that you're looking at personally I don't think they are worth the extra money, especially the specific one you're looking at. I would only look into IS on pro lenses.

 

[tirediron]

It really depends. Are you going to be doing the sort of shooting where you will need to hand-hold at slower-than-normal shutter speeds? If you shoot a lot of sports, or weddings, where you're dealing with movement in low light, than definitely. There's no way I would want to shoot a wedding without my 70-200 VR, BUT if your work is mostly on a tripod, landscape, nature or portrait work, than no. I would take the money from buying the non-VR/IS/OS/Whatever-it's-called and put it to a really good tripod.

 

[Vinny]

I would say it depends if you plan on using a tripod for some shots or not. You need to turn off the stabilization if you use a tripod. Years ago we didn't have stabilization but today it seems as though all the "better" lenses have it. Both my Nikon kit lenses have it and I turn it off on my 18-105 ... most of the time if I'm shooting outdoors I'll be over a shutter speed of 1/100 and hopefully I focused correctly to get sharp images.

 

[MohaimenK]

if you can get away with faster shutter speed or using tripods/monopods then no, if you need it in an inviroment where you'e taking a lot of hand held shot with low shutter speed, than yes it's definitely worth the money

 

[KmH]

+1 on what tirediron said.

Most of the time VR should be turned off, even when using a lens at a focal lengths of 200 mm or less when hand held, unless you have to use a shutter speed less than 1/the focal length being used.

There really is no substitute for learning and using good camera holding and handeling techniques.

 

[usayit]

unless you have to use a shutter speed less than 1/the focal length being used.

There really is no substitute for learning and using good camera holding and handeling techniques.

No substitute.. yes.. but nothing stops you from using both good camera holding and handling techniques WITH image stabilization.

 

[KenC]

I'm a big fan of IS for shooting in crowded areas like city centers where it is mostly impossible to set up a tripod and even a monopod is difficult, and often I end up shooting in deep shadow. I have used the Canon 70-300 IS hand-held with the IS on to get sharp images from about 1/250 down to 1/60 (and even lower occasionally). At these shutter speeds the old tele zoom I used with my film cameras gave much softer images unless I was able to lean it on something, which often isn't an option.

 

[eccs19]

Or get a Pentax with the shake reduction built into the body, and use even older screw mount lenses from the 50's and still have shake reduction. I realize you've already got a Canon system, so wouldn't expect you to change, but anyone else reading this thread for research might find this info handy.

 

[Infidel]

It really depends. Are you going to be doing the sort of shooting where you will need to hand-hold at slower-than-normal shutter speeds? If you shoot a lot of sports, or weddings, where you're dealing with movement in low light, than definitely. There's no way I would want to shoot a wedding without my 70-200 VR, BUT if your work is mostly on a tripod, landscape, nature or portrait work, than no. I would take the money from buying the non-VR/IS/OS/Whatever-it's-called and put it to a really good tripod.

Just want to clarify the movement aspect of your comment....you mean camera movement, right?

VR/IS will not reduce motion blur from subject movement (e.g., sports).

 

[tirediron]

It really depends. Are you going to be doing the sort of shooting where you will need to hand-hold at slower-than-normal shutter speeds? If you shoot a lot of sports, or weddings, where you're dealing with movement in low light, than definitely. There's no way I would want to shoot a wedding without my 70-200 VR, BUT if your work is mostly on a tripod, landscape, nature or portrait work, than no. I would take the money from buying the non-VR/IS/OS/Whatever-it's-called and put it to a really good tripod.

Just want to clarify the movement aspect of your comment....you mean camera movement, right?

VR/IS will not reduce motion blur from subject movement (e.g., sports).

Yes, thank-you. I was referring to have to move quickly the way you frequently do for things such as weddings, sporting events, etc, and don't have the luxury to take a moment, relax, slow your breathing and get into the best possible hand-holding position.